From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12468 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2002 23:44:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12385 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 23:43:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 23:43:59 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB8513C97; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:43:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C9135BB.4090401@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:44:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020210 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Henderson , Richard Earnshaw Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: declare canonicalize_file_name References: <20020314132845.A25190@redhat.com> <3C912539.4010009@cygnus.com> <20020314145602.B25218@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00225.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 05:33:29PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> I believe RichardE's fixed this (or will when he wakes up :-). GDB >> should have been using realpath() in preference to >> canonicalize_file_name() . > > > The problem will still hold with canonicalize_file_name > should it be used. > > Of course, since it's specific to glibc, and glibc also > provides realpath, it won't ever be used. Why not remove > support for it then? The call was only just added for the hurd :-( Hmm, http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-02/msg00631.html Oops, ulgh! if RichardE tweeks to code (as I suggested) to simply prefer realpath() it will break the hurd again. I think prefering realpath() is correct (only use an obscure function when forced too) but that logic is going to need to be scrambled a bit more :-(. RichardE, I guess another re-think. Andrew